Question about the number of units: balance, flow and fun

[pseudonyme]

Hi all,

I am slowly building 2 small armies (skeletons and Tzeentch demons) mainly because I like the models and wanted to paint them, and would like to try and make my wife play at least 2 or 3 games (whatever it will be: skirmish/fan extension, path to glory or AoS).

Thinking of how I am going to do and what fun narrative I could make, I wondered about the importance of the number of units of each player.

My main question is: should I look for building armies/warbands with the same number of units?

From a more general point of view, at the same number of points, do you think that the same number of units (not models), even in case of horde vs. elite, makes the game more balanced, improves the flow of the game and more important makes the game more fun?

Thinking that alternate activation is more interactive for both players (whichever is alternate phases, alternate unit activation or the Confrontation alternate activation way), I guess that having the same number of units seems the best way to have a steady flow.

[BURF1]

1 hour ago, pseudonyme said:

Hi all,

I am slowly building 2 small armies (skeletons and Tzeentch demons) mainly because I like the models and wanted to paint them, and would like to try and make my wife play at least 2 or 3 games (whatever it will be: skirmish/fan extension, path to glory or AoS).

Thinking of how I am going to do and what fun narrative I could make, I wondered about the importance of the number of units of each player.

My main question is: should I look for building armies/warbands with the same number of units?

From a more general point of view, at the same number of points, do you think that the same number of units (not models), even in case of horde vs. elite, makes the game more balanced, improves the flow of the game and more important makes the game more fun?

Thinking that alternate activation is more interactive for both players (whichever is alternate phases, alternate unit activation or the Confrontation alternate activation way), I guess that having the same number of units seems the best way to have a steady flow.

The number of units is almost completely irrelevant. It does nothing for balance either way. In fact an imbalance in the number of units in a game effect only ONE thing, and that's who gets to decide who goes first. Even at the extreme '16 units of blue horrors vs Nagash' level its effect is super minimal. Even in an alternating activation game(which Sigmar isn't) you're losing far more in trying to force two different armies to have similar unit counts than you're gaining.

I really can't emphasize this enough, the number of units on each side is literally the least relevant aspect of balance in the game. It's about 3% more important than whether or not it's raining outside.

[pseudonyme]

Surprised that there is absolutely no effect on the game, but thanks for the reply

[Mayple]

2 hours ago, pseudonyme said:

Surprised that there is absolutely no effect on the game, but thanks for the reply

Balance-wise, it does not impact the game.

 

That being said, to say that it has -no- impact whatsoever would be incorrect. Number of units is relevant mostly in relation to objectives, and army resources. If, for example, I have five units, and you have three, and we're fighting in a scenario that involves three or more objectives, you will be at a disadvantage because I can allocate more of my resources (number of units) more effectively, while you're going to have to make some difficult decisions. Do you cover all of them equally? Do you hit one hard, and allow me to take one for free with what is essentially 1/5 of my total army size?
 

On the flipside, your 3 units are likely* individually better than any of my 5, whether due to being more elite, or simply being a bigger unit, and would also probably be able to chew through all 5 in a prolonged fight (in a 3v5 matchup)

*This is a difficult generalisation to make, because each faction plays so differently, with different unit sizes, strengths, etc. For instance, as a Skaven player, I rarely want to fight at all, so splitting up my units is often not an issue, since I will be trying to -avoid- getting drawn into fights.

It comes down to resource management. If you spend points to achieve a larger unit count, then you're also (often) weakening the overal combat strength in a trade for board control. Number of drops and such also factor in, where the lower number would choose who goes first, but these would be the main points if we ignore that.

In short, it would be silly to try to slam down an even unit count on either side of the board, due to how differently the armies play. Some armies revolve around a higher unit count, while others show up with less than a handful. The unit costs and combat strength/Board control makes these kind of decisions balance themselves.**

**Unless you're playing the exact same army. In which case, you do you If not, then enforcing a mirrored number of units and heroes would be comparable to making every single faction and all units equally powerful in everything, or disregarding that, at the very least turn out to be a terribly unbalanced ordeal.***

***Which, if you're into that. You go gurl!

 

Edit: A good example of how a difference in unit numbers is healthy, look at Shadespire Of course, in that context, treat models as units.

[Lucio]

Main reason unit count doesn't really matter is attacks can be allocated as required to targets, so 20 bowman could shoot at 20 different units if they wanted to